Comments for Nephilim not in Genesis !

"Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous."

- Which wicked one was Cain of then? (Don't try to spiritualize away the answer)

Feb 14, 2012Rating

Nephilim in Genesisby: James

Nice information. Ill have to get the Strongs as anonymous suggests.

Don't the Sumerian texts also speak of mixed beings?

Jesus basically said there's nothing new under the sun. Wouldn't that include technology?

Feb 14, 2012Rating

Corrected version:Nephilim not in Genesis !by: Anonymous

Cain was a murderer, no doubt. However, he was merely a sinner like any other men. Being the first murderer, he automatically forfeited his birthright as the first born. So, there was no point including his genealogy. That does NOT mean he was not Adam's son. Adam had other SONS and DAUGHTERS whose genealogies were included in the line bur were NOT named.

A similar argument could be applied to Jacob (Israel) and Esau (Edom). Esau's blood line is NOT included in the genealogy of the Messiah but Tamar, Ruth and Rachel are. This does NOT mean Esau was not Isaac's son . He sold and hence forfeited his birth right. Under the ancient Hebrew law, he was to be named as the first. But he was not due to his own forfeiture. The Bible is poetic and prophetic. Milestones are always repeated.

A man also becomes the son of God in the New Testament if he ACCEPTS the Messiah as their Saviour meaning that although the man lives on earth, they share the blood of Christ and his person.

I do not know what colour was Adam or Eve but Adam came from the dust. Again what colour that dust was or whether that dust reflected on his race is a matter of irrelevance. He was just a man. All men do not have to be of the same colour. Colour is itself NOT a race. All things were created after their kind -- animals, plants etc but ONLY man was created as ONE kind -- in the image of God.

The wiping out of men during the flood suggests that man's blood line had been mixed with unnatural occurrences. The New Testament referred to the angels who sinned and are locked up. Christ also referred to seeing Satan falling down like lightning; and Revelations also reports that one third of the host of Heaven fell with him. If Satan is referred as the son of God, then his rebellious supporters also are. Consequently, the sons of God referred to in Genesis apply not to son of men. Even to this day, men are trying to create cloned humans. If this occurs, are we really sure who the “father” of these clones are? Men today cross-fertilise humans with animals for “scientific” purposes, how we know these “men” are not here with us?

On the other hand, the Bible clearly states that Cain was Adam’s son. Genesis 4:1 states: “And Adam knew his wife Eve, and she conceived, and bore Cain and said “I have gotten a man from the LORD”. This is absolutely clear.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Cain's children were NOT fully men or women or that they were from a different race of men. That a person sinned does not deprive that person from being man. All have sinned and require repentance and a Saviour. Whether Cain repented of his sin or not is difficult to know.

The reading of the Bible should be backed by consistency of the meaning as a whole. While one agrees that the different languages used to translate the Bible may mean differently, the main secret in the Bible is consistency of the Word regardless of the language used.

Feb 14, 2012Rating

Nephilim not in Genesis !by: Anonymous

Cain was a murderer, no doubt. However, he was merely a sinner like any other men. Being the first murderer, he automatically forfeited his birthright as the first born. So, there was no point including his genealogy. That does NOT mean he was not Adam's son. Adam had other SONS and DAUGHTERS whose genealogies were NOT included in the line.

A similar argument could be applied to Jacob (Israel) and Esau (Edom). Esau's blood line is NOT included in the genealogy of the Messiah but Tamar, Ruth and Rachel are. This does NOT mean Esau was not Jacob's son but he was NOT the son of Israel since Israel's name was changed by YHWH AFTER Esau had sold his birth right.

A man also becomes the son of God in the New Testament if he ACCEPTS the Messiah as their Saviour meaning that although the man lives on earth, they share the blood of Christ and his person.

I do not know what colour was Adam or Eve but Adam came from the dust. Again what colour that dust was or whether that dust reflected on his race is a matter of irrelevance. He was just a man. All men do not have to be of the same colour. Colour is itself NOT a race. All things were created after their kind -- animals, plants etc but ONLY man was created as ONE kind -- in the image of God.

The wiping out of men during the flood suggests that man's blood line had been mixed with unnatural occurrences. The New Testament referred to the angels who sinned and are locked up. Christ also referred to seeing Satan falling down like lightning; and Revelations also reports that one third of the host of Heaven fell with him. If Satan is referred as the son of God, then his rebellious supporters also are. Consequently, the sons of God referred to in Genesis apply not to son of men. Even to this day, men are trying to create cloned humans. If this occurs, or has already occurred, are we really sure who the “father” of these clones are? Men today cross-fertilise humans with animals for “scientific” purposes, how we know these “men” are not here with us?

On the other hand, the Bible clearly states that Cain was Adam’s son. “And Adam knew his wife Eve, and she conceived, and bore Cain and said “I have gotten a man from the LORD”. This is absolutely clear.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Cain's children were NOT fully men or women or that they were from a different race of men. That a person sinned does not deprive that person from being man. All have sinned and require repentance and a Saviour. Whether Cain repented of his sin or not is difficult to know.

The reading of the Bible should be backed by consistency of the meaning as a whole. While one agrees that the different languages used to translate the Bible may mean differently, the main secret in the Bible is consistency of the Word regardless of the language used.

Feb 13, 2012Rating

The word manby: Anonymous

The word man has two different meanings in the Hebrew and two different words. What I am saying is that the work man in one verse is 120 Adam - to be rosy, ruddy, show blood in the face, and the word man in other verses is 606 - see this number in Strongs. Look at this verse: Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Giants were mightly men ! Tyrants, ruthless kings who just took woman. They were of the line of Cain as he was not a son of God like Adam, but was a mixed breed as we see mixed breeds today - nothing supernatural about it ! Cain is found nowhere is Adams geneology. Also look up in Strongs Hebrew the word "men" in the context above (where it appears as "mighty men" - it will give you giant or tyrant and looking up giant in Hebrew Strongs Concordance will give you tyrant - the Nephilim and giants and tyrants and mights men were all the same thing.)

There were different types of men (races of men) then, just as there are now today. Why would angels want to marry men? The theory is ridiculous, and I suspect the Book of Enoch is definitely not Biblical and of God. I think that this is what is causing us to believe this strange belief, not backed up anywhere else in the Bible if you read carefully and use Strongs Hebrew concordance to decipher.

Feb 13, 2012Rating

GIANT = TYRANT OR BULLY IN HEBREWby: Anonymous

Go look up giants in a hard cover copy of Strongs Exhaustive concordance of the Bible. (which differs from the online Strong's entirely). Yes this word giant is pronounced Nephil, or Nephilim in the original Hebrew, but the definition of it says, bully or tyrant. It does not mean giant !

You are also wrong about "sons of God" - see this verse and many other similar ones in the Bible. 1 John 3:2 "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

Cain did make an offering which was rejected by Yahweh. Click whats new on the top left of this website and see my article on Cain and Abel and the bloodline of Cain - you will be amazed.

That verse is not implying what you think it is. Satan has influenced many normal humans and had relationships with them. You don't have to be half human or supernatural to be influenced by Satan as Cain was.

This idea of half humans and half angels or demons is ridiculous, and we know this by the definition of giants or nephilim in Strongs concordance (hard cover - get the oldest one you can find - mine is maroon coloured, thick A4 one with Hebrew Chaldee and Greek dictionaries - date unknown and based on KJV.)

Feb 12, 2012Rating

Translation Errorsby: James

Same basic comment I left for another post not trying to spam.

There are differences in the translations of the Holy Bible even in the KJV. Much of this today is done on purpose to further divide Christianity se we are easier to conquer.

[king james version]

10. GIANTS

[greek / hebrew]

10. NEPHILIM

Do a web search for

[TRANSLATION ERRORS IN THE KING JAMES VERSION

WHICH AFFECT THE INTERPRETATION OF BIBLE PROPHECY]

In Google it's the top page to see the remaining top 12 translation errors.

Feb 11, 2012Rating

Nephilim not in Genesisby: Anonymous

There is a difference between sons of God and sons of men.

"Now there was a day the sons of God came to present themselves to the LORD, and Satan came also among them" Job 1:6

No man was recorded as having attended that presentation.The implication here is that the sons of God referred to in Genesis were heavenly beings who took wives from the daughters of men. This was an unnatural relationship because earthly beings and celestial beings cannot marry -- no marriage in Heaven. As a result, they produced Giants who were wicked on earth. This has nothing to do with Cain who was never a Giant in the first place. Also, Cain was never recorded as going to the presentation of the LORD.

The only person who was referred to as son of God was Adam because he was directly created and was not born. All other men were born and were sons and daughters of Adam or the sons and daughters of men because they were born. The Messiah was the only begotten Son of God.